### Re: Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit

Article: <6g2r8a$3kh@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit
Date: 3 Apr 1998 14:20:58 GMT
In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> If it's to be here in 2003, then it can't be any further out than
> about 20 AU, unless, of course, it's not bound to our solar
> system, but then its not on a "long elliptical orbit". Once again,
> you have not learned what Johannes Kepler was able to figure
> out about 400 years ago about the motion of objects around
> our sun on elliptical orbits. You don't understand the concept
> and the workings of an elliptical orbit. The central body
> occupies only one of the two foci. The other is empty and has
> not affect on the motion of your 12th planet. When it's near
> the other focus, it will be moving at its slowest, not "zipping".
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Now how could that be, logically? If you can't explain why an
elliptical orbit is assumed, you place an immaginary body at a point in
space to fit the math? It fits the equations of your Gods of physics,
who must be worshiped, apparently, at all costs. If the math of orbits
was worked out centuries ago, based on what they knew and had observed,
then this same math must be applied. Is THAT logical? You're making
the broad assumption that a body CANNOT orbit two foci. Why not? If
all you have seen are objects looping far out in their orbits around a
single foci, then this is all there is?
It's a fact that most suns are binaries, and some so close at to give
the appearance of barely keeping each other at arms length. Why should
it be astonishing that a planet would institute an orbit around BOTH?
Clearly, some of the new highly elliptical orbits recently discovered
by your fellows show that orbiting bodies, much larger than dirty
snowballs, are influenced by SOMETHING out there pulling on them.
Are you saying it is impossible for a planet to orbit two suns?
Impossible?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])